Friday, 27 January 2017

Before the Industrial Revolution, which began in England in the 18th century, and then spread all over the world, so little wealth was produced by the primitive methods of production that only a handful of people could be rich while the rest had to be poor. But after the Industrial Revolution a unique situation has arisen in world history. Now the methods of production have become so powerful and so big that enough wealth can be generated to give a decent life to everyone on earth. So the real struggles of people everywhere is to create a social order in which every human being gets a decent life. The same applies to India too.

But creating such a social order is a very arduous, painful, historical process, extending over a long period, and calling for enormous sacrifices, because the vested interests in the existing social order will put up stiff resistance against any basic changes

In substance, what I intend to say today at St. Stephens College, Delhi today at 4.30 p.m. is that the next 10-15 years in India will be terrible and full of turmoil, but thereafter some kind of revolution will take place, and then good times will gradually come, in which the Indian people will have decent lives and a high standard of living.

I wish good times came immedialy without any pain or turbulence, but that is not how history functions

Wednesday, 25 January 2017

These are some thoughts which occurred to me while preparing my forthcoming speech at Stephens College, Delhi on Friday, 25th January at 4.30 p.m

1. I need not labour on what I have said earlier in various posts on fb ( e.g. in my speech at Hindu College, Delhi which can be seen on my fb page ). that our national goal must be to abolish poverty, unemployment, lack of healthcare, good education, nutritious food, housing etc for the Indian masses, and to attain this objective we must rapidly industrialize on a widespread scale, and spread scientific thinking and destroy casteism, communalism and superstitions.

2. This objective cannot be attained within the present system. The present Indian Constitution provides for parliamentary democracy, whereas such democracy is a feature of industrial society, not a feudal or semi feudal society. Our society is still largely semi feudal, with rampant casteism and communalism. The result is that our politics largely relies on caste and communal vote banks. most people vote for candidates of their own caste or community, or for parties representing them, rather than on the merit of the candidate.

The politicians' aim is thus directly contrary to the national aim. The politicians' aim is to win the next elections, and for that they have to appease, and thereby perpetuate casteism and communalism, which are essentially feudal forces . The national aim, on the other hand, must be to destroy the feudal forces in our country and rapidly modernize. Thus the aim of our politicians and the national aim are poles apart. How, then can the country progress under the present system ? Our Constitution has exhausted itself, and all our state institutions have largely become hollow and empty shells, while on the other hand the people's distress is rising, with massive unemployment, corruption, price rise, etc.

3. As I had said earlier, our national goal must be to rapidly industrialize, and make India a modern, powerful, highly industrialized country, for only then will we able to generate the wealth needed for the welfare of our people and give them decent lives, with a high standard of living.

There has therefore be a revolution in India, though that may take several years. What form it will take cannot be predicted.

After this revolution a new Constitution will have to be framed, which guarantees the Indian people the economic rights mentioned in the speech of American President Franklin Roosevelt of 1944 called ' The Second Bill of Rights ' ( see online and in Youtube ), i.e. employment with good incomes, healthcare, nutritious food, good education. housing, etc.to all.

But providing these rights on paper alone will be meaningless. They have to be provided in reality. How can that be done ? We have to provide employment, free healthcare, free education, free housing, etc to over 1.25 billion people. Where will the money for all this come from ? Money does not fall from the sky. Even setting up one primary school costs a lot of money, for land, building, etc and recurring salaries to teachers and other staff. For higher educational institutions we also need libraries, laboratories with scientific apparatus and equipment, etc. And we have set up tens of thousands of such schools, colleges, engineering and medical colleges, hospitals, scientific institutes, etc.

This will require a huge amount of money, and this money can only be generated by a highly developed industry. In other words, we have to industrialize on a massive scale.

Now industrialization on a large scale is no problem. India today has a huge pool of competent engineers, managers, technicians and scientists. We have also huge natural resources ( India is not a small country like England or Japan, but is amost a continent. )

The problem, however, is this : how will the goods produced be sold ? Our people are mostly poor and have very little purchasing power.

Therefore the real problem is not how to increase production ( that can easily be done with our huge technical talent and natural resources ) but how to increase the purchasing power of our masses ?

In socialist countries the method of raising the purchasing power of the masses, and thereby rapidly expanding the economy and consequently abolishing unemployment, was broadly this :

a. Prices of commodities were fixed by the government.

b. These prices were reduced by 5-10% every 2 years or so

c. This resulted in steadily increasing the purchasing power of the masses, because with the same income people could buy more goods. In other words, the real income of the masses went up, even if nominally it remained the same ( since real wage is relative to the price index ).

d. Simultaneously, production was stepped up, and this increased production could be sold in the domestic market, as the purchasing power of people was steadily rising.

e. This led to rapid expansion of the economy, leading to creation of millions of jobs and thereby abolition of unemployment.

During the Great Depression which hit the Western economies in 1929 after the Wall Street Crash ( it continued till the breakout of the Second World War in 1939 ) when about one third or more people in Western countries were unemployed and factories were shutting down, the Soviet economy was rapidly expanding and unemployed abolished by following the above methodology.

Of course this was only possible in a socialist economy, where the problem was solved by state action.

I am not saying that we must necessarily follow the method adopted by socialist countries. We can adopt any other method if thereby we can raise the purchasing power of the Indian masses and thereby rapidly expand the Indian economy, which is the only way of abolishing unemployment in India and generate the wealth we need for the welfare of our people

The central point, and therefore the main problem before India, is how to raise the purchasing power of the masses ? Unless we solve that problem, our new Constitution guaranteeing economic rights to the Indian people will be illusory

. 4. All the developed countries in the world, including the latest, China, have ganged up against us and are determined that India must not be allowed to become a highly industrialized country, like themselves. On the other hand, our national goal must be to become highly industrialized ( for the reasons given above ). Let me explain this point.

There is competition in the market, and so if one businessman can sell the same product which his business rival is manufacturing at a cheaper price, he can win over the latter's customers by underselling him. To do so he has to lower his cost of production. Now, cost of labour is a big chunk of the total cost of production, and if labour is cheaper the cost of production goes down, and one can sell at a cheaper price and eliminate his business rival.

To illustrate, after its revolution in 1949, China set up a massive industrial base, and with the cheap labour available in China, the Chinese are underselling the whole world in consumer goods. Most of the supermarkets in the Western countries are packed with Chinese goods, because they sell at less than half the price at which the Western manufacturer can sell ( because the Western labour is expensive ).

Now Indian labour is even cheaper than Chinese labour. And the India of today is not the India of 1947. In 1947 we had very few industries and very few engineers and technicians, because the British policy was broadly to keep us inindustrialized and feudal ( they permitted only some light industries e.g. textiles, plantations, etc which too were for a long period under British ownership, but no heavy industries ). But today India has a certain heavy industrial base, and thousands of competent engineers, technicians, managers, scientists, etc. ( our I.T. engineers are manning Silicon valley, and many of the Professors in the Maths and Science Departments in American Universities and many doctors in the West are Indians ) And we also have immense natural resources ( India is not a small country like England or Japan, but is almost a continent ).

So now we have the potential of becoming a highly industrialized country in 15-20 years. But then what will happen to the industries of the developed countries ? They will not be able to face our competition, because with our cheap labour we will be able to undersell them. Will they allow their industries to be destroyed ? Already China has become a Franken stein monster for the Western economies. Will they permit a second Frankenstein monster to arise ?

5. So what will the developed countries ( including China ) do to prevent this ? Since we have tremendous diversity in India--so many religions, castes, lingual, ethnic and regional groups ( India has perhaps more diversity than any other country in the world ), the developed countries will, through their agents, instigate religious, caste, ethnic and regional conflicts among Indians I am pretty sure that China is supporting through its surrogate Pakistan, the Kashmir militancy, and also the militancy in the North East.

So all Indians must beware of this, and expose such agents. We must maintain our unity at all costs, and block the designs of our enemies to fan communal, caste, ethnic and regional strife, otherwise we are heading for a terrible period in our history

Sunday, 22 January 2017

Some people are making a hue and cry because two people were allegedly killed in a Jallikattu.
Deaths are unfortunate, but happen in many activities. Should Diwali be banned because sometimes people die by fire due to the lamps or crackers ? Should boxing be banned because boxers are frequently injured and sometimes die. Should trucks, buses, motor cars, motor cycles or scooters be banned because sometimes people are killed or injured ? Should trains be banned In Orissa many people died recently because a train was derailed. Should flying on planes be banned. because sometimes aircrashes take place killing people on board? Should cricket, horse riding, etc be banned because sometimes people are injured, and occasionally even killed ? People have sometimes been killed in stampedes during Kumbh Mela, Haj, etc. Should Kumbh Mela, Haj, etc be banned ? Where is the end to all this ?

Samajwadi Party led by Akhilesh Yadav has formed an alliance with Congress, giving Congress 105 of the 403 U.P. Assembly seats.

This Alliance will probably win two third seats in the coming U.P. Assembly elections. I have already given my reasons in an earlier post.

Thereafter, by being routed in U.P. and Bihar, two big states in India, the graph of BJP will rapidly decline.

And as for the Superman who catapulted BJP into power in... 2014 by his superb dramatics and demagoguery, it will be appropriately said : " Punah mooshak bhav ". ( become a mouse again ).

In the 2019 Lok Sabha elections, BJP will be decimated, and a mahagathbandhan consisting of several parties will come into power. But these constituent parties in the mahagathbandhan will all fight with each other for a bigger share of the pie or loaf, and chaos will follow.

Then a vacuum will be created, which will be filled in by an army coup. But the army, too, cannot solve the massive economic problems of unemployment, price rise, healthcare, etc in India, and more chaos will follow.

As I mentioned in an earlier fb post and blog ' Historical significance of the Jallikattu agitation ', you are showing the whole of India the correct path, and are giving leadership to the whole nation. Therefore a heavy responsibility falls on your shoulders.

You have achieved a glorious victory in the Jallikattu agitation, whose historical significance I have already pointed out. Its significance is that perhaps the first time after Independence a popular movement has cut through the barriers of caste and religion, and achieved victory.

Some people say that the Jallikattu Ordinance is only a temporary measure. It is true that an Ordinance issued by the Governor is only temporary, vide Article 213(2) of the Constitution of India. But the Tamilnadu Legislature is meeting tomorrow ( Monday, 23rd January ) and will replace the Ordinance by an Act, which will be permanent.

It is true that this Act may be challenged in the Court, but this challenge is unlikely to succeed, since the assent of the President has been obtained under Article 254(2). So the apprehensions of some people are really unfounded.

Now the question before you is what will be the next step you will take. As I said before, the whole Indian nation looks upto Tamilnadu for guidance, and therefore a heavy responsibility lies on you Tamilians. You must therefore not get carried away by your great victory, but should reflect carefully and soberly what should be your next step forward, because the whole of India is looking upto you, and may follow in your footsteps.

In this connection I may here present my own ideas for your consideration.

In my opinion, the time has now come in this country for Jansamitis (people's committees) to be formed in all cities and rural areas in India. People must now solve their own problems themselves, instead of depending on the government. Tamilnadu can lead the way in this connection.

First a Jansamiti should be formed in the cities of Tamilnadu by the people of those cities themselves. The method for doing so can be that every Mohalla in every city in Tamilnadu should elect a mohalla Jansamiti democratically which will have a term of six months only, after which a fresh election will be held, so that those who do not perform will not be re-elected.

This mohalla committee should nominate two of its members to the city Jansamiti, which will also have a term of six months only.

Presently most MPs and MLAs are elected for five years, but after getting elected, they forget about the problems of their constituencies and get busy in making money. So the term should be much shorter for the Jansamiti, with a right in the voters and mechanism to recall the elected representative for any misdeed even before his 6 month term is over

The Jansamitis or Mohalla Samitis should advise the ministers and officials of the Government to do what is needed to solve the people's problems. If the ministers or officials do not respond, the members of the Jansamitis and Mohalla Samitis should tell the people to hold peaceful demonstrations at the offices and residences of the ministers, MLAs and officials, and publicise it in the media. This is legally permissible, vide Article 19(1)(b) of the Constitution.

This will exercise immediate pressure on the ministers, MLAs and the officers.

Following the example of Tamilnadu, Jansamitis should be formed in all cities in In India.

If the government and its officers do not respond, the people should also stop paying taxes. After all, taxes are taken to be used for the people's welfare, not to be pilfered and looted by the politicians

Details about the manner of election and functioning of these jan samities should be worked out by the people themselves using their creativity.

Saturday, 21 January 2017

Most people in India, and perhaps even Tamilians, would not be realizing the historical significance of the victory of the Tamil people over the Jallikattu issue. They may think it was a matter confined to Jallikattu and confined to Tamilnadu. They may think it has nothing to do with the massive challenges India faces of abolishing poverty, unemployment, lack of healthcare, nutrition, good education, etc. .

But in fact the popular Jallikattu agitation or uprising, and the victory of the Tamil people, has significance for the whole of india and is far beyond bull taming ( or bull embracing ). It is a spark which will light the flame which will spread throughout the country, and is the first step in solving all our major problems.

The victory of the Jallikattu agitation shows that when hundreds of thousands of people rise unitedly like a typhoon or tornado it becomes a force so powerful and so swift that no power on earth can resist it.

I myself used to often get pessimistic seeing our people divided on the lines of caste, religion, region, etc. I wondered whether the Indian people can or will ever unite, rising above caste, religion, region,etc to face our huge challenges. The significance of the Jallikattu agitation is that it cut through caste and religious barriers. In fact it even cut through the the national border as Indians in many parts of the world supported it.

Thus the victory of the Tamil people is a victory for all Indians. It has shown that we Indians can unite, as we must, if we are to solve our massive problems.

The Jallikattu agitation has thus shown the path which we Indians must follow. We must unite, and not remain divided ( though our enemies will make every effort to divide us on caste, religious and regional lines ), if we are to ever solve India's problems.

The Jallikattu agitation was a spontaneous uprising. The agitators rightly refused to allow politicians to intervene, as most of our present politicians are utterly selfish and unpatriotic. In many places the police was unleashed on them, but they were undeterred, undaunted and resolute..

The Tamil people have thus given leadership to the whole country, and have shown the correct path to the whole nation that we must unite to face our massive challenges.

Thursday, 19 January 2017

A question arises what is a Constitution, why have a Constitution, and what is its purpose ?

A Constitution is the fundamental law of the land. It is a social countract by which a country is governed.

Every society must have a system of governance. Since man is a gregarious creature, and cannot survive alone, every community of men and women had to have an organization with a system of governance, e.g. leaders, advisers, etc. Even ancient tribal societies had a system of governance, i.e. a Constitution, with tribal chiefs, etc, though these were unwritten Constitutions, created by custom. Ancient and medieval communities all had unwritten Constitutions, and even today England has a largely unwritten Constitution..

The first and main purpose of a Constitution is to set up the organs of power. Today these organs are the legislature, the executive, the judiciary, the army, police, bureaucracy, etc.That is why a Constitution is sometimes called the organic law of the land. The Constitution defines the powers and duties of these organs,e.g. the power of taxation in Parliament

We may consider the historical growth of the English Constitution in modern times, since many of our Constitutional principles have been derived from England.

The Tudor monarchs, from Henry the Seventh, who became King of England in 1485, till the death of Elizabeth 1 who died in 1603. were absolute rulers. The struggle between King and Parliament was in reign of the subsequent Stuart Kings, the first Stuart King being James 1 who became King in 1603. It is not necessary to mention here about these struggles between King and Parliament, and suffice it to say that eventually in this struggle the Glorious Revolution of 1688 established that it was Parliament which was supreme, not the King. In the Bill of Rights of 1689, which was assented to by the new King William, it was laid down that the King could not violate the law and raise taxes or troops without the consent of Parliament. The precedent of 1688 established that Parliament could even transfer the Crown from one head to another, something inconceivable earlier.

But the Bill of Rights of 1689 only transferred sovereignty from King to Parliament. It did not give any rights to the people. It was John Locke's ' Second Treatise of Civil Government ' of 1689 which for the first time in history said that there were certain ' natural rights ' of citizens, which citizens had by the very fact of being born citizens, and which even the King could not violate.

This theory of John Locke was in contrast to the earlier theory of Thomas Hobbes ( in his book 'Leviathan' ) which said that the King's sovereignty was absolute. Locke, on the other hand, said that the King's sovereignty was not absolute but limited. Limited by what ? Limited by the natural rights of citizens which even the king could not violate.

It was this theory of natural rights of John Locke which became the basis of the Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution of 1791, the Declaration of the Rights of Man passed by the French National Assembly in 1789 during the French Revolution, and our own Part 3 of the Indian Constitution, the Part which lays down certain Fundamental Rights of citizens which even Parliament cannot violate, e.g. right to life, freedom of speech, equality, liberty, freedom of religion, etc.

What was the need for providing such fundamental rights in the Constitution ? The need was because it was realized by the Constitution makers that though Parliament was elected by the people, and was therefore expected to represent the interests of the people, yet there may be occasions when Parliament itself may become despotic, oppressive and anti people. Hence the people had to be safeguarded against such eventualities.

Thus, while the first purpose of a Constitution was to set up the organs of power, the second purpose was to place checks on these organs by incorporating certain fundamental rights of the people, so that the state organs may not become despotic. This was also done by incorporating Montesquiu's theory of separation of powers.

But who would enforce these rights and checks and balances? Obviously the legislature and executive could not be entrusted to do so, because these rights were to check the powers of the legislature and executive. Hence it was the judiciary which became the guardian of the people’s rights and liberties, either expressly vide Articles 32 and 226 of the Indian Constitution, or by judicial interpretation vide judgment of the U.S. Supreme Court in Marbury v. Madison

Many feudal Kings, e.g. the Bourbons in France, and the Romanovs in Russia, fiercely resisted any attempt to set up a written Constitution, as they thought this would diminish their absolute powers. It was only after promulgation of the U.S. Constitution in 1791 that written Constitutions came into vogue, and now almost every country has one.

A third purpose in certain Constitutions, like ours, was to lay down what a welfare state should do.This was mentioned in part 4, which are the Directive Principles of State Policy, though by Article 37 these have been made unenforcible.

The Indian Constitution in its historical context

We may now discuss the Indian Constitution in its historical context. To do so we have to first understand what is India.

As discussed in great detail in my judgment in Kailas v. The State of Maharashtra, and in my article ' What is India ? ' on my blog justicekatju.blogspot.in, India is broadly a country of immigrants, like North America. About 92% people living in India today are descendants of immigrants. The original inhabitants of India are not the Dravidians (who were also outsiders) but the pre- Dravidian tribals e.g. bhils, santhals, gonds, todas, etc. (i.e. the Scheduled Tribes). These comprise only about 7% to 8% of the Indian population today (for details see the above mentioned judgment online).

This explains the tremendous diversity in India – so many races, castes, religions, languages, cultures etc. China is larger than India, both in population and in land area, but there is broad (though not absolute) homogeneity in China. All Chinese have Mongoloid faces, 95% belong to one ethnic group called the Han, there is one written script mandarin etc. On the other hand India is characterized by its tremendous diversity, which is broadly due to the fact that it is largely a country of immigrants.

Hence to bring the country together it is essential that all the communities, regions, lingual groups etc., be given equal respect and to be treated equally, and this the Constitution does through Articles 14 to 18 (the equality provisions), Article 25 (freedom of religion), etc.

When India became independent in 1947 Partitions riots were taking place, and large parts of the country were engulfed in religious madness. Pakistan had declared itself an Islamic state, and there must have been tremendous pressure on Pandit Nehru and our leaders to declare India a Hindu state. When passions are inflamed, it is difficult to keep a cool head. It is the greatness of Pandit Nehru and our other leaders that they kept a cool head and resisted the pressure of declaring India a Hindu state. They declared India as a secular state, which was the correct decision in a sub continent of such tremendous diversity. This becomes evident when we see what is happening in our neighbouring country. In Hinsa Virodhak Sangh vs. Mirzapur Moti Kuresh Jamat (2008) the Supreme Court elaborately discussed our secularism.

The Indian Constitution sets up a federal form of a government. Federalism caters to regional aspirations. In a country of such tremendous diversity federalism is absolutely essential. Thus, the Naga people have their own government and so do the Tamil people, the people of Punjab, of Orissa, Assam, Bengal etc. There is also a central government which is for all. The jurisdiction of the Centre and the States is demarcated by Articles 245 to 248 and the Seventh Schedule.

Unity amongst diversity is a basic theme of the Indian Constitution. Article 301 which states that trade and commerce shall be free throughout the territory of India, provides for economic unity of India, and political unity depends upon economic unity. Article 301 in effect implies that India is one economic unit, and the various states are not separate units. Thus a manufacturer having his factory in Tamil Nadu can freely sell his goods in North India, West India or East India.

India must remain united because only a united India can provide the huge market which a modern industry must have, and it is only modern industry which can generate the wealth required to lift our people out of poverty and other social evils like unemployment, lack of healthcare, etc and give them a decent life. The Indian Constitution is an important mechanism for maintaining the unity of India, a country with tremendous diversity.

This speech sounded like Ribbentrop who often spoke in favour of peace while the Nazis were preparing for war.

Why do I say that China is today the biggest threat to world peace ? It is because it has a huge 3.2 trillion dollar foreign exchange reserve which is hungrily seeking foreign avenues for investment, foreign markets, and raw materials for its huge industry. China today is not the China earlier. Today it has become an imperialist power, seeking domination over many countries and their markets It has already largely grabbed Pakistan economically, and has also penetrated into Africa and other countries, including India..

A rising power is usually more dangerous than an established one, because it is more aggressive. Thus, Nazi Germany was more dangerous than the other Western countries.

Everyone should see through the smiling face of Xi Jinping and other Chinese leaders, and all their false rhetoric of peace, reconciliation and stability, when in fact they are on the path of neo colonialism and economic expansionism. Of course the Chinese may not fight directly because of nuclear weapons, but they will certainly fight through their proxies.

Tuesday, 17 January 2017

Proposed speech at Hindu College, Delhi on 19.1.2017 at 2 p.m. ---Part 2
In the first part of my proposed speech at Hindu College which was posted on fb earlier I had stated at the end that The Indian Constitution, 1950 has exhausted itself, the state institutions in India have largely become hollow and empty shells, while the people's distress and discontent is rising steadily, and there will be a revolution in India, though that may take several years.
After this revolution a new Constitution will have to be framed, which guarantees the Indian people the economic rights mentioned in the speech of American President Franklin Roosevelt ' The Second Bill of Rights ' ( see online and in Youtube ), i.e. employment with good incomes, healthcare, nutritious food, good education. housing, etc.to all.
But providing these rights on paper alone will be meaningless. They have to be provided in reality. How can that be done ? We have to provide employment, free healthcare, free education, free housing, etc to over 1.25 billion people. Where will the money for all this come from ? Money does not fall from the sky. Even setting up one primary school costs a lot of money, for land, building, etc and recurring salaries to teachers and other staff. For higher educational institutions we also need libraries, laboratories with scientific apparatus and equipment, etc. And we have set up tens of thousands of such schools, colleges, engineering and medical colleges, hospitals, scientific institutes, etc.
This will require a huge amount of money, and this money can only be generated by a highly developed industry. In other words, we have to industrialize on a massive scale.
Now industrialization on a large scale is no problem. India today has a huge pool of competent engineers, managers, technicians and scientists. We have also huge natural resources ( India is not a small country like England or Japan, but is amost a continent. )
The problem, however, is this : how will the goods produced be sold ? Our people are mostly poor and have very little purchasing power.
Therefore the real problem is not how to increase production ( that can easily be done with our huge technical talent and natural resources ) but how to increase the purchasing power of our masses ?
In socialist countries the method of raising the purchasing power of the masses, and thereby rapidly expanding the economy and consequently abolishing unemployment, was broadly this :
1. Prices of commodities were fixed by the government.
2. These prices were reduced by 5-10% every 2 years or so
3. This resulted in steadily increasing the purchasing power of the masses, because with the same income people could buy more goods. In other words, the real income of the masses went up, even if nominally it remained the same ( since real wage is relative to the price index ).
4. Simultaneously, production was stepped up, and this increased production could be sold in the domestic market, as the purchasing power of people was steadily rising.
5. This led to rapid expansion of the economy, leading to creation of millions of jobs and thereby abolition of unemployment.
During the Great Depression which hit the Western economies in 1929 after the Wall Street Crash ( it continued till the breakout of the Second World War in 1939 ) when about one third or more people in Western countries were unemployed and factories were shutting down, the Soviet economy was rapidly expanding and unemployed abolished by following the above methodology. Of course this was only possible in a socialist economy, where the problem was solved by state action.
I am not saying that we must necessarily follow the method adopted by socialist countries. We can adopt any other method if thereby we can raise the purchasing power of the Indian masses and thereby rapidly expand the Indian economy, which is the only way of abolishing unemployment in India and generate the wealth we need for the welfare of our people
The central point, and therefore the main problem before India, is how to raise the purchasing power of the masses ? Unless we solve that problem, our new Constitution guaranteeing economic rights to the Indian people will be illusory

Monday, 16 January 2017

My prediction about the forthcoming Punjab Assembly elections is based on reason, not emotion. If Punjab elections had been held an year back, AAP would have got a majority. But in the past year its image has been sullied by many scandals, involving even Ministers in the Delhi Govt.. On the other hand, Capt. Amrinder Singh enjoys a good image, and he is a Punjabi. AAP has projected Kejriwal, a non Punjabi, as its Chief Minister ( though I wonder how he can be C.M. of 2 states ?). Why should Punjabis want a non Punjabi as their Chief Minister ? So I believe Congress will get a majority and form the next govt. in Punjab

Proposed speech in Hindu College on the 19th
I have to speak on ' 67 years of the working of the Indian Constitution ' on 19th January at the Hindu College auditorium in Delhi at 2 p.m. It must be a serious, well thought out talk, so I thought of jotting down some points for my speech, and these are the ideas which have occurred to me ; India became independent in August 1947, and promulgated a Constitution on 26th January, 1950. Within this period the Constituent Assembly met and deliberated.. Many of the Comstituent Assembly members like Jawaharlal Nehru were modern minded men. Nehru himself had spent many years in England ( studying in Harrow and Cambridge ) and had seen how British society and institutions functioned. Many others were lawyers in High Courts in India, which were patterned on the British High Court. Under British rule, Indian society was largely feudal and backward, with the zamindari system prevalent in many parts of India. The British policy was not to allow india to become industrialized, because if it did, Indian industry could become a powerful rival to British industry. So the Britishers did not allow setting up heavy industries in India, but only allowed setting up some light industries like textiles and plantations, which too were initially under British ownership. India was kept largely as an agricultural country, and its people largely illiterate, feudal minded and backward. Since our Founding Fathers were patriotic people, they decided to set up a modern Constitution, which they thought would pull up our backward society into the modern age. Hence they borrowed from Western Constitutions e.g. Parliamentary system of democracy, independent judiciary, non political bureucracy, etc from England, a Bill of Rights and federal system from the U.S. Constitution, etc. In England, the modern institutions, e.g. Parliament, Cabinet system with a Prime Minister as its head, independent judiciary, etc and the modern principles, e.g. liberty, equality, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc were created only after arduous, historical struggles by the people in the 17th and 18th centuries.The Tudor sovereigns ( who ruled from 1485 to 1603 ) were absolute monarchs. It was only with the coming of the Stuarts on the death of Queen Elizabeth 1 in 1603 and the ascent of James 1 as King of England that the struggle between King and Parliament began, which culminated in the Glorious Revolution of 1688 which established the sovereignty of Parliament. Thereafter, too, long struggles went on, which ultimately resulted in creation of a modern ( though unwritten ) Constitution, and modern principles in England. Thus the modern Constitution and modern principles were a result of long historical struggles of the English people. In India, on the other hand, the modern institutions and modern principles which our Founding Fathers set up in our Constitution were not a result of our own struggles, but were borrowed from the Western countries, and transplanted from above on our backward, feudal society. No doubt the intention of our Founding Fathers was that a modern Constitution, with modern institutions ( e.g.a democratically elected Parliament, Cabinet system of govt., independent judiciary, etc ), and modern principles ( in Part 3 of the Constitution which laid down the Fundamental Rights ), would pull up our backward, feudal society into the modern age, which to some extent it indeed did. But the problem was that our Constitution and our society did not correspond to each other. The Constitution was modern, while our society was backward ( unlike in England, America, etc where both were modern ). The Constitution no doubt provided for democracy. But democracy is a feature of a modern industrial society, it is not a feature of a feudal society. The result in India has been ( as everyone knows ), that in most places people vote largely on the basis of caste and religion as vote banks, and do not see the merit of the candidate, whether he is a good man or not, whether he is educated or not, etc.. Was democracy meant to be run in this manner ? That is why there are so many persons with a criminal background in our legislatures. Our national aim must be to destroy feudalism ( casteism, communalism, etc ) so as to make.India a modern, powerful industrial state with our people enjoying a high standard of living. But our political leaders' aim is only to win the next elections, and for that they have to rely on caste and communal vote banks i.e. feudal forces. So, far from destroying feudalism they seek to perpetuate it. So our national interest is diametrically opposite to the interest of our politicians. How can the country progress in this situation ? We no doubt made some progress after independence. A heavy industrial base ( iron and steel plants etc ) was erected, girls started to go to school, the number of educational institutions( including technical institutions ) was greatly increased, etc. But now our economy has become stagnant, rather it is in recession, while unemplyment has become massive ( for a single peon's or constable's post there are thousands of applications, many of the applicants being postgraduates or engineers ), besides other massive problems like lack of healthcare and good education for the masses, enormous child malnutrition ( about 50% of our children suffer from it ), lacs of farmers suicides ( as farming has become largely uneconomical due to the escalating cost of inputs ), price rise, corruption, etc. President Franklin Roosevelt of America gave a speech in 1944 called ' The Second Bill of Rights ' ( it can be seen online and on Youtube ) in which he said that the Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution ( which guarantees freedom of speech, equality, liberty, freedom of religion, etc ) has been found to be inadequate. What is the use of telling a poor and/or hungry man that he has liberty, equality and freedom of speech when what he wants is food and a job ? The latter becomes illusory. and hence there is need of a Second Bill of Rights guaranteeing to everyone a job with a good income, nutritious food, healthcare, good education, housusing, etc. In the Indian Constitution no doubt the Directive Principles of State Policy mention these socio-economic rights, but Article 37 has specifically made them unenforceable. Hence they are only ornamental. I submit that these socio-economic rights cannot be obtained within the framework of our present Constitution. The Constitution no doubt did some good, but now it has exhausted itself. The solutions to our basic and massive problems now lie outside the system---which means by a revolution
.

1. Under British rule of course an Indian soldier could not vent his complaint publicly. But after India became independent, has the position not changed ?

2. In a democracy, does the army belong to the army chief, or even to the President of India ( the supreme commander ), or does it belong to the people ?

3. In a democracy, are the people supreme, or are the state authorities ( the President, Prime Minister, etc ) and army chief supreme ?

4. If the army belongs to the people, and if the people are supreme, as I believe they are, then are the people not entitled to know the conditions and welfare of soldiers ? After all, soldiers, and even the army chief, get salaries out of the taxes people pay.

5. How else will people know about the conditions of soldiers except through the media ? The media acts as an agent of the people.

6. The army chief must have served in the army for 30-35 years. Can it be believed that he did know till now what was going on in the Indian army, and the conditions of soldiers . If he did, why did he not take, or recommend ,correctional steps till now?

Although I eat beef ( and pork ) and am an atheist, I am a strong champion of Sanskrit and the Hindu Nyaya philosophy( see my articles ' Sanskrit as a language of science ', ' Nyaya or Vedanta ? ', ' Indian philosophy ', etc on my blog justicekatju.blogspot.in as well as on facebook and on kgfindia.com).

Most Hindus, and most members of organizations and parties who claim to represent Hindus, have little or no idea of the great Hindu intellectualism of the past, and of the real great intellectual achievements of our ancestors ( see my blogs ' The real nature of BJP ', ' Did Rama and Pushpak Vimaana exist ' ), and instead make false boasts e.g. that there were atom bombs, guided missiles, aeroplanes etc in ancient India or that Hindus discovered head transplant and genetic engineering ( see my blogs ' Making us a laughing stock ', ' Mixing the true with the untrue ', ' A visit to Akshardham ', etc )..

Thus, I am a real Hindu, rather than these so called Hindus, and organizations and parties which claim to represent Hindus, but really know little or nothing about Hinduism.

Saturday, 14 January 2017

The Central Govt. appears to have taken a legally untenable view that an Ordinance cannot be issued amending the PCA Act and permitting Jallikattu during the pendency of a case in the Supreme Court relating to Jallikattu.

This view is not correct. An Ordinance by the President of India stands on the same legal footing as an Act of Parliament, and it can be issued when Parliament is not in session.

No one can say that Parliament cannot change the law just because a case is pending about it in the Supreme Court. There have been innumerable occasions when this was done. One may recall that when Indira Gandhi's appeal against the Allahabad High Court judgment in her election case was pending in the Supreme Court, not only the Representation of Peoples Act but even the Constitution was amended.. In 1951 the Constitution was amended inserting the First Schedule when appeals were pending in the Supreme Court against the judgments of the Allahabad and Patna High Courts regarding the challenge to the Zamindari Abolition Acts.

It is reported that the Central Govt. is willing to issue an Ordinance permitting Jallikattu. If this report is correct the Ordinance could have been issued by now.

When Neville Chamberlain, the then Prime Minister of England, came back to London from Germany in 1938 after the shameful Munich Pact ( which surrendered Sudetenland, a part of Czechoslovakia, to the Nazis ), Winston Churchill, who was then in the Opposition, said in the House of Commons :

" You were given a choice between war and dishonour. You chose dishonour, and you will have war ".

So Indians, you were given a choice between that fake ' Mahatma ' Gandhi on the one hand, and the genuine freedom fighters like Bhagat Singh and Surya Sen on the other.

You were given a choice between a genuine freedom struggle, which is always an armed struggle ( because no one gives up his Empire without an armed fight ), in which no doubt millions of our countrymen would have perished, but which would have led to real freedom for India and creation of a prosperous country, or a fake freedom struggle, in which the bloodshed was avoided, but which has led to massive poverty, massive unemployment, almost non existent healthcare and good education for our masses, etc.

You chose the dishonourable path of Gandhi, instead of the honourable path of Bhagat Singh and Surya Sen, but you will now have massive bloodshed.

Many people say that the violent method of freedom struggle in India against the British, as advocated and practised by Bhagat Singh, Surya Sen ( Masterda ), Chandrashekhar Azad, Ashfaqulla, Rajguru, Khudiram Bose, Ram Prasad Bismil, etc was wrong. They assert that it would have led to enormous bloodshed and was bound to have failed. Hence, they allege, the non violent method of

Gandhi was correct.

I totally disagree. Firstly,do imperialists give up their huge Empire because someone resorts to hunger strike or does salt march or sings ' Raghupati Raghav Raja Ram ' ? Did the American colonies get freedom from England by non violent methods ? Did George Washington fight the British with his Continental army, or by offering them flowers and satyagrah ? Did Bolivar free the Latin American countries with his battalions. or by presenting the Spaniards lollipops ? Did Ho Chi Minh fight the French by speeches, or with guns ?

India got independence not because of Gandhi but because in the Second World War Germany attacked and weakened England, which made the British appeal to the Americans for help. In return, the Americans put pressure on the British to open up India to American investments too, ( as they did not want a British monopoly in India ). So the 'Independence' of 1947 was really opening up the Indian economy to U.S. investments too. This had nothing to do with Gandhi. In fact had Gandhi had his way, India would never have got independence ( see my blog ' Gandhi--a British agent ).

A freedom struggle is necessarily an armed struggle. No doubt the Indian people would have suffered enormous casualities in such a struggle against the British, but what of that ? As Thomas Jefferson said " The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of tyrants. It is its natural manure. "

I remember I was with a Frenchman in Paris some time back. I told him " Why did you French surrender to the Nazis in 1940 ? You should have fought on. Why did you surrender Paris to the Germans ? "

He replied that the French army had been defeated, and if France had not surrendered there would have been enormous French casualities, and a lot of property, including priceless French cultural treasures would have been destroyed.

I said that even if that had happened Paris should never have been surrendered, but instead should have been burnt down by Frenchmen themselves, as the Russians did to Moscow in September, 1812, instead of surrendering it to Napoleon's army.

When the German attack on England was about to commence, the British Prime Minister, Winston Churchill, in a historic speech in the House of Commons on 19th May, 1940 said ( quoting the Bible ) :

" Arm yourselves, and be ye men of valour, and be in readiness for the conflict, for it is better for us to perish in battle, than to look upon the outrage of our nation, and of our altar "

Then again on 4th June he said " We shall go on to the end. We shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and the oceans, -- we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills, we shall never surrender. "

Some people may ask : with what weapons could we have fought the British ? We did not have any ?

The answer is ; in guerilla war one fights with the weapons of the enemy, by snatching them from him. And after all, Bhagat singh, Surya Sen, etc got weapons from somewhere.

Our ancestors chose the dishonourable, easy way out offered by that British agent Gandhi, instead of the difficult but genuine path shown by Bhagat Singh and Surya Sen, and we are still suffering for that, even 69 years after independence, and will continue to suffer for many years more

I regard the true freedom fighters of our country as Surya Sen ( Masterda ), and his other compatriots of the Anushilan Samiti and Jugantar, Bhagat Singh, Khudiram Bose, Chandrashekhar Azad ( whose memorial in Alfred Park in Allahabad I would visit often to bow my head there ), Ashfaqulla, Rajguru, Ram Prasad Bismil ( whose song ' Sarfaroshi ki tamanna ab hamaare dil mein hai ' is known to many ), etc.

In our national historiography these real patriots are barely mentioned, they are generally relegated to a footnote, and treated as mavericks, deviants or outsiders, not freedom fighters. That fake ' Mahatma' and his coterie, and that pawn of the Japanese fascists, are depicted as the real freedom fighters.

Gandhi described the militant Indian youth fighting against British Imperialism as ' misguided souls '

. He often said that militant nationalism was injurious to India's struggle for freedom. In reality he knew that if those methods became popular among the Indian masses his own popularity would decline, and his ' Mahatmahood ' may disappear.

When the British sentenced Bhagat Singh to death, Gandhi made no effort to save his life. He never wrote any letter to the British Viceroy to commute his sentence , nor did he issue any public appeal for this purpose, and he never went to meet Bhagat Singh in jail when the latter was on hunger strike.

By diverting the genuine freedom struggle against the British from its revolutionary path to harmless and nonsensical channels like satyagrah, Gandhi was ensuring that British rule over India would continue.

It is said that Gandhi gave us Independence in 1947. This is totally false. In fact by diverting the genuine revolutionary independence struggle against the British in India ( see one of my earlier posts ) to harmless and nonsensical channels like ' Satyagrah ' Gandhi was ensuring that India should not become independent.

Why then did the British leave ? Surely it was not because of the dramas Gandhi was doing ( fasting, salt march, etc ). Does anyone give up an Empire because of this ?

No, it was because Germany attacked England in the Second World War and considerably weakened it ( in fact Germany would probably have conquered England if America had not helped it ) that England, realizing that she could not continue holding on to India politically, withdrew. So it is not Gandhi who gave us Independence but Adolf Hitler ( though of course that was not his intention )

I have also called ' Netaji ' Subhas Chandra Bose a Japanese agent, a remark over which many people have got incensed. But If ' Netaji ' was not a Japanese agent, why did he give up the fight against the British when the Japanese surrendered ? He should have carried on a guerilla war against the British.

If the Japanese had been victorious against the British do you seriously think they would have granted independence to India ? No, they would have made India a Japanese colony, and ruthlessly exploited and looted it, as they did to parts of China which were under their occupation..

In fact Bose was being used by the Japanese, and they would have bumped him off the moment his utility for them was over. He was no doubt a brave and personally honest man, but he had become an agent of Japanese fascist imperialism.

The genuine patriots and revolutionaries, who have been sidelined in our history, were as much victims of the Congress Party, which was firmly in Gandhi's grip, as of British Imperialism

Gandhi and Caste
Gandhi repeatedly said in the 1920s that ' Hindus must follow their hereditary professions ' and that ' prohibition of intermarriage between people of different varnas was necessary for a rapid evolution of the soul '. In the 1930s he changed his tune and started saying that he was opposed to caste but supported varna and hereditary professions, as if there is a difference between the two.
This hypocrisy was typical of Gandhi. Whenever he found his stupid feudal ideas unacceptable he tried to obfuscate.
Thus in 1921 he said in his journal Young India " I am a sanatani Hindu. I believe in varnashram dharma ( caste system ). I believe in protection of the cow "
He also said " I believe that caste has saved Hinduism from disintegration. One of my correspondents suggests that we should abolish the caste system but adopt the class system of Europe, meaning that the idea of hereditary castes should be rejected. I am inclined to think that the law of heredity is an eternal law, and any attempt to alter it must lead to utter confusion. Hindus believe in transmigration of the soul, and Nature will adjust the balance by degrading a Brahmin if he misbehaves to a lower caste, and upgrading one who lives the life of a Brahmin to a Brahmin in his next life. "
He also wrote " The beauty of the caste system is that it does not base itself upon distinctions of wealth-possessions. Money, as history has proved, is the greatest disruptive force in the world C aste is but an extension of the principle of the family. Both are governed by blood and heredity. Western scientists are busy trying to prove that heredity is an illusion andthat milieu is everything. The.experience of many lands goes against the conclusions of these scientists; but even accepting their doctrine of milieu, it is easy to prove that milieu can be conserved and developed more through caste than through class. As we all know, change comes very slowly in social life, and thus, as a matter of fact, caste has allowed new groupings to suit the changes in lives. But these changes are quiet and easy, as a change in the shape of the clouds. It is difficultto imagine a better harmonious human adjustment.Caste does not connote superiority or inferiority. It simply recognizes different outlooks and corresponding modes of life.But it is no use denying the fact that a sort of hierarchy has been evolved in the caste system, but it cannot be called the cre-ation of the Brahmins. When all castes accept a common goal of life, a hierarchy is inevitable, because all castes cannot realize the ideal in equal degree."
Again in 1921 Gandhi said : “I believe that if Hindu society has been able to stand, it is because it is founded on the caste system. A community which can create the caste system must be said to possess unique power of organization.To destroy the caste system and adopt the Western European social system means that Hindus must give up the principle of hereditary occupation which is the soul of the caste system.The hereditary principle is an eternal principle.To change it is to create disorder. It will be a chaos if every day a Brahmin is to be changed into a Shudra, and a Shudra is to be changed into a Brahmin. The caste system is a natural order of society.... I am opposed to all those who are out to destroy the caste system.”
In 1926 Gandhi writes ": In accepting the fourfold division I am simply accepting the laws of Nature, taking for granted what is in-herent in human nature and the law of heredity.... It is not possible in one birth entirely to undo the results of our past doings."
Gandhi's hypocrisy can again be seen by the following statement in 1927 :
: " In my conception of the law of varna, no one is superior to any other.... A scavenger [.a rubbish-collector or a latrine- or street-sweeper] has the same status as a Brahmin "
Is this not ridiculous and farcical ? Do Brahmins regard shudras as their equals ?.It is like the devious doctrine of 'separate but equal ' propounded by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1896. Gandhi does not want abolition of the caste system, he says all castes have the same status, which is nonsense.
In 1925 Gandhi says: " There is no harm if a person belonging to one varna acquires the knowledge or science and art specialized in by persons belonging to other varnas. But as far as the way of earning his living is concerned, he must follow the occupationof the varna to which he belongs, which means he must follow the hereditary profession of his forefathers.The object of the varna system is to prevent competition and class struggle and class war. I believe in the varna system because it fixes the duties and occupations of persons.Varna means the determination of a man’s occupation before he is born. In the varna system no man has any liberty to choose his occupation."
This statement is again obfuscation. Why will anyone acquire a skill unless he can use it to earn his bread ?
In 1931 Gandhi said: " I do not believe in caste in the modern sense. It is an excrescence and a handicap on progress. Nor do I believe in inequalities between human beings. We are all absolutely equal. But equality is of souls and not bodies. We have to realize equality in the midst of this apparent inequality. Assumption of superiority by any person over any other is a sin against God and man. Thus caste, in so far as it connotes distinctions in status, is an evil .I do however believe in varna which is based on hereditary occupations. Varnas are four to mark four universal occupations – imparting knowledge, defending the defenceless, carrying on agriculture and commerce, and performing service through physical labor. These occupations are common to all mankind, but Hinduism, having recognized them as the law of our being, has made use of it in regulating social relations and conduct. Gravitation affects us all whether one knows its exist or not "
The above statement really takes the cake. On the one hand Gandhi says he does not believe in caste, on the other hand he says that he believes in hereditary occupations, and says it is like the law of gravity. But hereditary occupations is the basis of caste ( see my blog on caste system on justicekatju.blogspot.in ). Does this contradictory statement require any comment, except to say that this man can wriggle around and say that 2+2=4 and 2+2=5 in the same breath ?
In 1932 Gandhi said: "My own opinion is that the varna system has just now broken down. There is no true Brahmin or true Kshatriya or Vaishya. We are all Shudras, i.e. one varna. If this position is accepted, then the thing becomes easy. If this does not satisfy our vanity, then we are all Brahmins. Removal of Untouchability does mean root-and-branch destruction of the idea of superiority and inferiority "
Does the above statement make any sense ? At least I cannot make any head or tail out of it.
In 1933 Dr. Ambedkar said "There will be outcastes as long as there are castes, and nothing can emancipate the outcaste except the destruction of the caste system.". This was a logical argument of Dr. Ambedkar.
But see how Gandhi replies. He said " Dr. Ambedkar is bitter. He has every reason to feel so. Yet I do not believe the caste system, even as distinguished from varnashrama [the scheme of duties traditionally linked to the caste system], to be an “odious and vicious dogma. It has its limitations and defects, but there is nothing sinful about it, as there is about Untouchability; and if Untouchability is a by-product of the system, it is only in the same sense that an ugly growth is of a body, or weeds of a crop ".
Thus Gandhi is not against the caste system but only against Untouchability.
Gandhi admitted that his ideal of a varna system with everyone enjoying equal economic and social status probably had no historical warrant:
: But when asked whether in ancient India there was much difference in economic status and social privileges between the four varnas Gandhi replied " That may be historically true. But misapplication or an imperfect understanding of the law must not lead to the ignoring of the law itself. By constant striving we have to enrich it ".
So Gandhi is not against the caste system but only its 'misapplication.' ( whatever that may mean )..
The contrast between Gandhi’s and Ambedkar’s views was heightened by their respective relations
to the Jat-Pat-Todak Mandal, a new organization which was dedicated to promoting a casteless Hinduism. Gandhi told its secretary:in1932: "If eradication of castes means the abolition of varna I do not approve of it. But I am with you if your aim is to end the innumerable caste distinctions ".
Dr Ambedkar corrrectly analysed the cause of Gandhi's contradictory statements and obfuscation regarding caste as " the double role which the Mahatma wants to play – of a Mahatma and a politician. As a Mahatma he may be trying to spiritualize politics. Whether he has succeeded in it or not, politics have certainly commercialized him. A politician must know that society cannot bear the whole truth. If he is speaking the whole truth, it is bad for his politics. The reason why the Mahatma is always supporting caste and varna is because he is afraid that if he opposes them he will lose his place in politics.... Whatever may be the source of this confusion, the Mahatma must be told that he is deceiving himself and also deceiving the people by preaching caste under the name of varna ".
This is the man who has been thrust down the throats of Indians as the ' Father of the Nation ', and cheerfully swallowed up by our gullible people, who are like children whom any Machiavellian Pied Piper of Hamelin can lead into a deep ditch

Gandhi again Gandhi has been presented as a 'Mahatma', the Father of our nation, who gave freedom to India. I submit this is a myth carefully built up by the British and certain other vested interests. What is the truth. ? When Gandhi came to India from South Africa ( where he practised law for about 20 years ) in about 1915 the Congress party was confined to some intellectuals, and had little mass following. Gandhi thought that since India is a deeply religious country the best way to build up a mass following would be use of religion. So from 1915 till his death in 1948 in almost every public meeting and his writings he would propagate Hindu religious ideas like Ramrajya, go-raksha ( cow protection ), varnashram ( caste--see in this connection my blog ' Gandhi and Caste, in which I have quoted his speeches ), brahmacharya, etc ( see 'The Collected works of 'Mahatma Gandhi ', which is a Govt. of India publication in several volumes ). This indeed converted the Congress from a party of only intellectuals to a mass party. But it was a mass party of the Hindu masses alone. How could the Muslims join such a party whose leader was constantly preaching Ramrajya, go-raksha, varnashram, etc which appealed to Hindu sentiments ? In fact such an appeal to religion necessarily drove the Muslim masses to a Muslim communal organization-- the Muslim League. And prior to 1947 Muslims comprised of about 25% of the population of undivided India ( this percentage was reduced to about 17-18% after 1947 because a section of Muslims became citizens of Pakistan ). Did this not serve the British policy of divide and rule ? By continuously injecting religion into politics was Gandhi not driving the Muslims towards the Muslim League ? And therefore was Gandhi not objectively a British agent ( since the British policy was divide and rule ) ? In his book 'The Partition of India ' the eminent jurist Seervai has written that the method of Gandhi of appealing to Hindu ideas may have mobilized the Hindu masses, but it inevitably led to Partition of India. Thus while Gandhi claimed he was secular, that was only hypocrisy. In fact he was communal. Unfortunately most people in India have not read the speeches and writings of Gandhi from 1915 to 1948, and so they do not know what he had done, and they have been taken for a ride. It is high time for them to know the truth. Some people say that the fact that Gandhi went to Noakhali etc in 1947 to appeal for communal amity shows that he was secular. But in fact this was the typical hypocrisy of Gandhi ( see my blogs ' Chalak Pakhandi ' and ' Here is the Father of your Nation ' on justicekatju.blogspot.in ). First you set the house on fire by propagating Hindu religious ideas day in and day out for several decades, and then when the house is burning you do the drama of trying to douse the flames by appealing for communal harmony. Why did you set the house on fire in the first place ? Some people ask : what did Gandhi get by this ? My answer is that different people have different motivations. For some money is the motivation, for others power. in Gandhi's case it was probably power ( he was effectively the leader of the Congress ) and the desire to be called a 'Mahatma'. However, that is irrelevant.Whatever may have been his motivation, the real question to be asked is : did his actions in fact further the British policy of divide and rule ? That is why I have called Gandhi objectively a British agent. Subjectively he may have any motivation. An objective agent may not receive any money, and he may not even be conscious of the fact that he is working as an agent. But that does not matter. If by your deeds you are in fact serving the interests of a foreign power, you are an agent of that foreign power. As regards the claim that Gandhi gave us freedom,this again is a myth. Does any country give up its empire without an armed fight for independence ? Did America get independence from England by satyagrah and hunger strikes, or by mobilizing the Continental Army under George Washington.which fought the American war of Independence from 1775-1781 ? Did Bolivar liberate several Latin American countries with guns or presenting flowers and bouquets to the Spanish rulers ? Did Ho Chi Minh defeat the French by use of arms, or by salt marches ? It is said by some that if the Indian people had resorted to arms against the British rulers there would have been a lot of bloodshed. That is true, but then that is the price a people must pay for getting freedom. In fact our real freedom fighters, Bhagat Singh, Chandrashekhar Azad, Surya Sen ( Masterda ), Ashfaqulla, Ram Prasad Bismil, Khudiram Bose, Rajguru, Sukhdev, etc realized this and took up arms against the British in the early 20th century.. This was no doubt only the beginning of a nationwide armed fight against the British, and was therefore only on a very small scale. But later on it would have developed into a full blown War of Independence. But Gandhi successfully diverted this genuine freedom struggle towards a harmless channel called satyagrah, which was sentimental nonsense, and which would do no real harm to the British. Would a great power like Britain give up its Empire because Gandhi was going frequently on fasts and singing Raghupati Raghav Raja Ram in public meetings ? The names of our real freedom fighters ( mentioned above ) have been relegated to the footnotes of our history books, and they have been depicted as mavericks and deviants, while that fraud Gandhi is given the credit of winning freedom for us So who was responsible for Independence in 1947 ? Let me explain.In the Second World War, which started in 1939, Germany attacked England, and considerably weakened it. Possibly Germany would have conquered England, had it not been for American help. But this help came at a price. The Americans put pressure on the British to give up their empire in india, so that India may be opened up for American enterprizes and investments too. This is the real cause of independence to india. It had nothing to do with Gandhi.
I am reproducing below my blog which started this debate Gandhi---A British Agent This post is bound to draw a lot of flak at me, but that does not matter as I am not a popularity seeker I have often said things knowing that initially that will make me very unpopular, and I will be vilified and denounced by many. Nevertheless I say such things.as I believe they must be said in my country's interest. I submit that Gandhi was objectively a British agent who did great harm to India. These are my reasons for saying this : 1. India has tremendous diversity, so many religions, castes, races, languages, etc ( see my article ' What is India ?' ). Realizing this the British policy was of divide and rule ( see online ' History in the Service of Imperialism ' , which is a speech delivered by Prof. B.N. Pande in the Rajya Sabha ). By constantly injecting religion into politics continuously for several decades, Gandhi furthered the British policy of divide and rule. If we read Gandhi's public speeches and writings ( e.g. in his newspapers 'Young India', ' Harijan ', etc ) we find that ever since Gandhi came to India from South Africa in 1915 or so till his death in 1948, in almost every speech or article he would emphasize Hindu religious ideas e.g. Ramrajya, Go Raksha ( cow protection ), brahmacharya ( celibacy ), varnashram dharma ( caste system ), etc ( see Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi ). Thus Gandhi wrote in ' Young India ' on 10.6.1921 " I am a Sanatani Hindu. I believe in the varnashram dharma. I believe in protection of the cow ". In his public meetings the Hindu bhajan ' Raghupati Raghav Raja Ram ' would be loudly sung. Now Indians are a religious people, and they were even more religious in the first half of the 20th century. A sadhu or swamiji may preach such ideas to his followers in his ashram, but when they are preached day in and day out by a political leader, what effect will these speeches and writings have on an orthodox Muslim mind ? It would surely drive him towards a Muslim organization like the Muslim League, and so it did. Was this not serving the British policy of divide and rule ? By constantly injecting religion into politics for several decades, was Gandhi not objectively acting as a British agent ? 2. In India a revolutionary movement against British rule had started in the early 20th century under the Anushilan Samiti, Jugantar, and revolutionaries like Surya Sen, Ramprasad Bismil ( who wrote the song ' Sarfaroshi ki tamanna ab hamare dil mein hai ), Chandrashekhar Azad, Ashfaqulla, Bhagat Singh, Rajguru, etc ( who were all hanged by the British ). Gandhi successfully diverted the freedom struggle from this revolutionary direction to a harmless nonsensical channel called Satyagrah. This also served British interests. 3. Gandhi's economic ideas were thoroughly reactionary. He advocated self sufficient village communities, though everybody knows that these communities were totally casteist and in the grip of landlords and money lenders..Gandhi was against industrialization, and preached handspinning by charkha and other such reactionary nonsense. Similarly, his ' trusteeship ' theory was all nonsense, and an act of deceiving the people Some people praise Gandhi's bravery in going to Noakhali, etc to douse the communal violence at the time of Partition. But the question is why did he help setting the house on fire in the first place by preaching religious ideas in public political meetings for several decades, which were bound to divide the Indian people on religious lines? First you set the house on fire, and then you do the drama of trying to douse the flames